I have a paper which has not been submitted for publication nor has it been seen at any stage by my supervisory team. However it has been extensively but informally reviewed by some student peers, some of which have since completed their PhD and I think it's quality is at least reasonable.

I am currently on self imposed suspension. I may leave my PhD. If I do leave, one of the things I may do is apply for jobs and so I am updating my CV to reflect this PhD period and my leaving it. I have read various CV advice and it is recommended by most to include as much evidence of real activity during your PhD. I have some publications, but this paper is probably my most extensive writing and represents extensive work and results.

Would I be breaking any ruling or any code of conduct to remove the academic institution and co-authors (who if it had been published would not have contributed in practice, only in name) and reference this paper (in some kind of location) in my CV? My intention is solely to give the full picture that I have not been inactive, nothing else.

I will not do this if it is wrong, but I simply do not know.

Thanks for advice.

Ok, so you have a manuscript prepared for submitting (but you haven't yet) to a possible journal. Nobody in your supervisory team has seen it (I'm guessing they don't know you've written another manuscript, is that right?), but you've had some friends who weren't directly involved in the work look at it. But they have since moved on.

From what I've been told, referencing an unsubmitted manuscript might not mean anything. Unless you fully intend to submit it in the next given opportunity in which case you could say it's under preparation, with the intention to submit it to blah journal by blah date

I thought the institution is only added when submitting a correspondence address/ when you sign up to the journal's author manuscript submission section. You could just give a different correspondence address. I think manuscripts can be submitted privately, but there may be a charge if you're not affiliated with an academic institute.. I'm not one for adding coauthors who have had nothing to do directly with the work ( I had to stand up against similar pressures), but that can leave you with some unhappy people. If you can handle it, then leave them off. But burning bridges is not recommended in academia.

I know someone who published without their supervisor knowing at all. They were the only author on their paper. So if you can keep it hidden, I guess it's possible. But again this isn't standard practice.

Up to how well you could handle it all really. Hope I helped.

Quotes From PhDefault:

I asked for an appointment with my second supervisor. I may have said "request to review progress" or "request to review paper" I don't remember. I cannot get access to my email while on suspension. I went on suspension before appt.


Not quite. They did a thorough review, they weren't otherwise involved. One is now a Dr in the same institution.


How do you mean "not mean anything"?


I don't FULLY intend, but I guess if I DO end up returning to my PhD I may want to submit it.


It's just a pdf on my laptop at the moment. It has the institution at the top just as a matter of course. I would remove it and the coauthors. I don't want to formally publish it anywhere. I just want to make reference to my activity in my CV (which incidentally probably would not be used for an academic position), but I would make it accessible (somewhere anywhere) just so they can see it is a real piece of work.


If I am publishing from the uni I have to include the coauthors, they are/were supervisors. If I just say here's an unpublished paper, is there any reason why it is ill advised to store a copy with no institution and me as the only author.


What bridges would I be burning precisely?


I don't want to 'formally' publish it. If I just put it somewhere accessible as an unpublished paper just so people can see what I say on my CV is real, is there a downside to that? Or have I in fact technically published it?

Oh ok! Sorry, i thought you were fully meaning to publish it, just not wanting to add coauthors/your supervisor etc hence the "burning bridges" comment. And by "might not mean anything" was again a referral to if you were fully intending to submit to publish but hadn't just yet. Because I've been told that a submitted manuscript is an active manuscript etc which shows people you're actively publishing. But you can ignore all that. I got the wrong end of the stick completely! :/

I guess in that case you can refer to it by all means as a way of showing potential employers what you've been doing. And there's nothing wrong in handling it as you want to, it is all your work after all. :)

I am not sure if posting such an ‘unofficial manuscript’ is a good idea. Potential employers might think (even if it is not the case!) that you are releasing confidential information or data that you are not allowed to release, which could rise questions about your integrity.

Before showing them your manuscript you should check that you are allowed to share the data it contains. Were you working on a grant of your supervisors, who owns the rights of the work? And if they contributed to you results, either helping you in finding, delimiting the topic, with discussions... etc. I would acknowledge that somehow and not present it just as my work. I think this might also be an issue for potential employers.

I quit a PhD where I was working on a project of my supervisor. Before leaving I wrote a summary of my findings, made some figures and summarized current knowledge on my area ... what you do at the beginning. I send it to all my supervisors and asked if I could show it to potential employers after leaving. They agreed and we both benefited from that: I had something to show to potential employers and they got a good summary that made the life of the students coming after me easier.

Another alternative would be to summarize in 1-2 pages what you did, what equipment you used, what you learnt, how you could apply it in another settings, etc... I think it is anyways unlikely that they would read a long manuscript, so a short nicely written and formatted summary might be as good!

The supervisor had no funding. I just received a university bursary which came from a research council.
As I said the other authors did not really contribute to the writing or the work, except that supervisory team is deemed to have contributed since they technically support you. Any data is my own results or public data. However, I guess if one says, "so and so says..." then the university has paid a subscription that has allowed you to read "so and so's" papers. Is this enough to say the paper is not my own?

The only other issue of concern might be the fact that equipment was purchased ( but not with a budget personal to my supervisors or me, there was no project related to this equipment just my phd). However I guess I could remove the results that were obtained from that equipment and retain the results obtained through for-free publicly available simulations. Then the paper still stands without it.

I don't think I am allowed to communicate with the university.

If I cannot show this work then I wonder if a good period of my time will look relatively blank. I already have my period of suspension as well so I need to include as much as possible to convince an employer I haven't been doing nothing. I think it will be hard enough convincing them I am employabl as it is. After dropping out of 4 years on a PhD with little to show, followed by 6 months suspension, I think my earlier degree and 10 years in the industry may count for very little.

I'm not sure I really see the point in all this, other than scraping the barrel to try and show you were actually doing something during those 4 years you admit you have "little to show for". Also, you're not 'publishing' anything by simply making it available online - why not just put it on your CV and then say the work is viewable in a PDF if they want to see an example of your work?

The point is tatjana is recommending against it being viewable at all. Perhaps you disagree?

In terms of the work I would say this paper represents a lot proportionally, rather than scrapping the bottom of the barrel. I potentially have a lot less to show if I cannot show this. I think 'some' employers will be less interested in publication and more interested in seeing evidence that I have not done nothing but have worked hard, designed, developed, gained new skills and knowledge. I think this paper may be the best way to do that.

I think there is value in saying briefly in a CV I wasn't doing nothing, I did all this work, read about it in this paper. Perhaps you disagree?

But I think saying here's a few short conference papers but the bulk of my work is described in a paper but I cannot show it you, takes away much of that value.

I do not think in a job application you have to “show” that many documents or so much evidence .. It is about convincing them that YOU are the right candidate, that you can do and want to do the job. A 30 pages manuscript is not going to do that, and I really doubt that recruiters or managers are going to read 30 pages about a topic they probably do not know much about.

You need to do the job for them: explain them what you learned in these 4 years, what your strengths are, how this experience will help you in your new role ... They will not be able to see that from your manuscript.

Maybe when you are invited to an interview, you might bring your manuscript up ... but even then, unless you apply to a position where you are expected to write a lot, it will probably be not very relevant for them.

Do not justify yourself so much, you worked hard, worked a lot and decided a PhD was not for you. That’s fine, really... I think a self confident applicant who can explain his strengths and how well he fits the job will be much more successful than someone who is trying to show that he did something in the last 4 years... This might not leave such a good impression on them.

I do not know if I am explaining myself well, but I think getting a job of often much more about you behaviour and attitude than about ‘facts’... and I do not think that having or not that manuscript will make an important difference.

Good luck !